The next report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change isn't due until the end of next year. The fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is currently in review and not yet in its final form. But the review process is open, and anyone can sign up to be a reviewer, provided they agree to keep the documents confidential. Someone who doesn't believe the conclusions of most climate scientists has done just that—and then turned around and leaked the report. In the process, he's demonstrated a severe lack of scientific reasoning.

The IPCC's fourth Assessment Report was released more than five years ago. Since then, we've made significant progress on a variety of fronts, gathering more data, refining models, and getting a better grip on some of the processes that force changes in the climate. Various indications are that AR5 would generally predict similar changes in temperatures as previous reports, but significantly improve over past uncertainties on things like sea level rise.

But the report is still in the midst of the review process. Although the rough outlines aren't likely to undergo significant changes—we're long past the deadline for new research to be included now—the precise wording is certainly subject to change.

Which is why it's even more surreal that there's so much fuss being made about a single sentence in one of the drafts, a sentence that is being used to justify leaking the entire document. And it's even more surreal when that sentence is examined in context, which reveals the person doing the leaking has badly misinterpreted it.

The leak

Alec Rawls doesn't seem likely to fit anyone's description of a climate science expert. A visit to his website reveals a variety of essays on politics and law, along with a prominent link to a book in which he claims the Flight 93 memorial in Pennsylvania might be "the world's biggest mosque." But, already back in 2005, Rawls was claiming the IPCC had things all wrong. He suggested its authors are "not scientists, they are propagandists."

But there is also a hint there that Rawls feels that expertise was overrated in general: a lawsuit he filed after trying (and failing) to be put on the ballot as a candidate for sheriff of California's Santa Clara county. The reason for his rejection: lack of prior law enforcement experience.

Again, the IPCC review process allows anyone to sign up as a reviewer and Rawls took advantage. By February of this year, he was already taking to a blog to discuss the contents of the AR5 drafts, despite admitting that "I agreed not to cite, quote, or distribute the draft." The blog he chose for this discussion is Watts Up With That, which is generally notable for managing to interpret everything as an indication the Earth hasn't gotten much warmer, and even if it has, humanity has nothing to do with it. Given that very little evidence is consistent with this interpretation, it makes for some interesting logical contortions.

Rawls fits right in at the site, accusing the IPCC of "systematic fraud" by the second paragraph. But his claims ended up being widely ignored, although he repeated them a few times throughout the past year. So, last week, Rawls decided to leak the entire IPCC report. Again, he justifies this based on his claims the IPCC process is thoroughly fraudulent: "As for my personal confidentiality agreement with the IPCC, I regard that as vitiated by the systematic dishonesty of the report."

But when it comes to specifics of this dishonesty, Rawls only cites one example. "The addition of one single sentence [to the draft] demands the release of the whole. That sentence is an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and the main conclusion of the full report, revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the whole."

Much ado about one sentence

Let's step back for a second and consider what a sentence can tell us. AR5, as leaked, is 14 chapters, a technical summary, and appendix, and a summary for policymakers. The chapter the sentence in question comes from contains 62 pages of text, and another 42 pages of references to support the claims in the text. It gives pages of tables and 27 pages of figures. This is a staggering undertaking. No single sentence is going to make or break it.

(And, remember, this is currently being edited as a draft; the whole point of that is to ensure that any sentences that are ambiguous or poorly worded get corrected.)

That said, the sentence in question is the second of three Rawls quoted:

Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.

Let's unpack that. The sun undergoes both periodic (the solar cycle) and long-term changes in its activity. These changes affect the amount of light that reaches the Earth, which will have a direct effect on the climate. But they also change the strength of the Sun's magnetic field, which influences the number of energetic charged particles that enter the Solar System and strike Earth. A number of isotopes created when these particles hit can thus be used to provide a measure of the Sun's activity in the past, on scales of thousands of years.

These measures of activity, as the report notes, have been linked to a variety of climate trends, like temperature and rainfall trends. In a number of these cases, the magnitude of the climate change observed is larger than what you would expect based on the projected change in the Sun's light output.

There are two ways of looking at that. Either the Sun is affecting the climate in ways that go beyond the light it sends to the Earth, or factors other than the Sun are altering the climate at the same time. The latter seems to have occurred during the Little Ice Age, where solar activity dropped, but the total cooling was larger than expected because of high volcanic activity. The IPCC report looks at the former, examining the evidence the charged particles themselves could indirectly influence the climate by seeding reflective clouds. The current evidence, however, is that cosmic rays don't influence cloud cover. We've covered some of this evidence, but the AR5 draft provides a comprehensive look at the topic, describing all the evidence that puts this hypothesis on very shaky ground (as you'd expect from something with 42 pages of references).

How could this possibly be interpreted as fraud? Rawls' logic seems to be that, if there are some correlations with solar activity, then the only possible explanation is that the Sun is having effects beyond what you would expect based on the amount of light it gives off. And if it's not cosmic rays, then it must be something else that the climate community hasn't recognized. By ignoring this mysterious, unidentified other factor that Rawls is convinced must exist, the IPCC is acting in a fraudulent manner.

At best, Rawls' scientific reasoning here is very shaky; science doesn't ever consider every possible explanation, or we would constantly have to retest whether Martians were sneaking into the LHC and poking wires at just the right moment. And there's certainly nothing here that rises to the level of fraud, either scientific or otherwise. But the audience he's writing for is very unlikely to care, given that his claims will appeal to their expectations.

40 Reader Comments

If the draft isn't even at the stage of being voted on by the member nations, then anyone trying to make hay out of its contents is just stupid, because it still has to be filtered through the lens of delegations like the US and Saudi Arabia who have a lot of past history of watering down the facts as much as humanly possible.

If the draft isn't even at the stage of being voted on by the member nations, then anyone trying to make hay out of its contents is just stupid, because it still has to be filtered through the lens of delegations like the US and Saudi Arabia who have a lot of past history of watering down the facts as much as humanly possible.

If the facts will be watered down in the final draft, then perhaps the fact that it was leaked is a good thing, to see just how far policy makers will dilute it, and then call shenanigans on them with the data to back it up?

I'm of the opinion that anyone of the faction who gets up in arms about alleged massive and systemic fraud in relation to climate change isn't likely to have a rational discussion on the topic, so let them scream their piece and move on. The truth will bear out.

...alleged massive and systemic fraud in relation to climate change isn't likely to have a rational discussion on the topic...

I agree that fraud and conspiracy theories are hardly believable. Never suspect conspiracy where incompetence will do. Do we have massive incompetence and systematic exaggeration of fairly benign trends? That is very plausible.

But there's virtually nothing in the body of work of climatologists over the last two decades to suggest that there is "massive incompetence" or "systematic exaggeration" of "fairly benign trends."

Certainly, on a cosmological scale our sea level rising three meters over the next fifty years means very little. But it does mean a lot for the people for whom that ten feet is the difference between having a home and not having a home.

There is one gross omission in the article; commentary to the IPCC panel photo, to be exact. They received "Nobel *Peace* Prize", and there is nothing even remotely scientific about it.

You know, I'm actually going to agree with this comment. I have no problem with the IPCC nor the Nobel Peace Prize, but it's not unreasonable for a casual reader to assume that a Nobel Prize awarded to members of the IPCC would be one of the scientific prizes - in that case, such an assumption would be mistaken.

It's a minor quibble and certainly doesn't change the thrust of the article, but hey. /shrug

Certainly, on a cosmological scale our sea level rising three meters over the next fifty years means very little

Where did you see 3 m / 50 years figure? I saw 1 m / 100 years (don't remember what adjective did they marked the "likely" with).

Edit: Here is exact quote:

Global Mean Sea Level Rise Projections1617 It is very likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise during the 21st century will exceed the rate 18 observed during 1971–2010 for all RCP scenarios. For the period 2081 to 2100, compared to 1986 to 19 2005, global mean sea level rise is likely to be in the range 0.29–0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.36–0.63 m for 20 RCP4.5, 0.37–0.64 m for RCP6.0, and 0.48–0.82 m (0.56–0.96 m by 2100 with a rate of rise 8–15 mm yr–121 over the last decade of the 21st century) for RCP8.5. Unlike in the AR4, these projections include a 22 contribution from changes in ice-sheet outflow, for which the central projection is 0.11 m. There is only 23 medium confidence in these ranges of projected global mean sea level rise, because there is only medium24 confidence in the likely range of projected contributions from models of ice sheet dynamics, and because 25 there is no consensus about the reliability of semi-empirical models, which give higher projections than 26 process-based models. Larger values cannot be excluded, but current scientific understanding is insufficient 27 for evaluating their probability. [13.5.1, Table 13.5, Figures 13.8 and 13.9]

Skeptics of climate change seem to often refer to the Sun's effects as an unknown that throws the whole premise of anthropogenic climate change out the window. Skepticism is fine, but ignoring scientific evidence is not.

The problem with Rawls and others like him is that they'll latch on to anything the IPCC says (or does) that raises doubt, whether it's doubt on the science or doubt on the legitimacy of the IPCC, like the email debacle from a while back. If deniers can't find anything glaringly offense, they'll make something up or interpret things ass-backwards.

There's always going to be doubt, if not on the source of climate change, then on the magnitude of the temperature and sea level changes. Rawls is not a climate scientist and he has already made up his mind. Sadly, even if I choose to ignore Rawls, deniers will prop Rawls up as a whistleblower on IPCC fraud and the ignorant masses will listen and put off real action another 5-10 years.

...alleged massive and systemic fraud in relation to climate change isn't likely to have a rational discussion on the topic...

I agree that fraud and conspiracy theories are hardly believable. Never suspect conspiracy where incompetence will do. Do we have massive incompetence and systematic exaggeration of fairly benign trends? That is very plausible.

Skepticism of any research, particularly of research involving such complex systems with significant risk of having unaccounted influences, is healthy. But, I think that climate scientists have been under enough scrutiny to be self-aware and generally avoid Hanlon's Razor. Given the crucible that climate scientists deal with, any results they are willing to stand up for and defend, I'm willing to trust they have thoroughly reviewed and vetted for precision and accuracy.

I agree that fraud and conspiracy theories are hardly believable. Never suspect conspiracy where incompetence will do. Do we have massive incompetence and systematic exaggeration of fairly benign trends? That is very plausible.

But there's virtually nothing in the body of work of climatologists over the last two decades to suggest that there is "massive incompetence" or "systematic exaggeration" of "fairly benign trends.".

oh, i'd assumed he was referring to this Rawls guy, who is so staggeringly incompetent that he misunderstood "there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of [cloud condensation nuclei]" as the IPCC agreeing that global warming is caused by cosmic rays", then uses that to support his systematic exaggerations of the effects of the sun on the climate

Skepticism of any research, particularly of research involving such complex systems with significant risk of having unaccounted influences, is healthy. But, I think that climate scientists have been under enough scrutiny to be self-aware and generally avoid Hanlon's Razor. Given the crucible that climate scientists deal with, any results they are willing to stand up for and defend, I'm willing to trust they have thoroughly reviewed and vetted for precision and accuracy.

Well, that was some exaggeration on my part. However, reading the document I can't help but notice numerous "low confidence" projections. Why include those educated guesses at all? How often in your field you witness published assertions with admitted "low confidence"?

Soon to mutate into a martyr, should the IPCC decides to enforce provisions of their NDA - which I hope they refrain from doing too harshly.

Not me, I hope they sue him into the poor house.

These assholes seem to think they're above the law. Hack into computers and steal email, break signed contracts, libel and slander scientists, whatever they feel like doing. About time a few of them got slapped and slapped hard.

Well, that was some exaggeration on my part. However, reading the document I can't help but notice numerous "low confidence" projections. Why include those educated guesses at all? How often in your field you witness published assertions with admitted "low confidence"?

because it's useful to know what you don't know.

and you've clearly never read many review papers. their purpose is to summarise the state of the art across a given field. this should obviously describe the limits of current understanding -- which are naturally associated with a lot of uncertainty -- so that the reader can build an accurate picture of what is and isn't still in question.

Soon to mutate into a martyr, should the IPCC decides to enforce provisions of their NDA - which I hope they refrain from doing too harshly.

Not me, I hope they sue him into the poor house.

These assholes seem to think they're above the law. Hack into computers and steal email, break signed contracts, libel and slander scientists, whatever they feel like doing. About time a few of them got slapped and slapped hard.

When Peter Gleick does it, it's wrong! No question! It's proof that the Nazi Warmista Watermelons are hoaxing us into a One World Government to redistribute our wealth! Also the term "denialist" is comparing us noble skeptics to Holocaust Deniers and we won't stand for it! What you must understand, though, is that when Alec Rawls or the unknown hackers of the CRU do it, or when Tim Ball libels Mike Mann, or when Monckton calls his opposition the Hitler Youth, or when we compare people convinced of AGW to the Unabomber, it's absolutely right and justified. BECAUSE REASONS, THAT'S WHY!

If you sign a non-disclosure agreement, then don't bloody disclose. It doesn't matter that you don't agree with what's being said - that was going to be a given with this guy. What matters is that you have solemnly said "I won't leak anything".

Now all we really know about Alec Rawls, apart from his skepticality about climate change, is that he's a liar. Promises not to do something and then does it anyway.

That doesn't really help you argue your case to anyone but the already firm believer. He has simply created yet another credibility problem for the climate change skeptic community.

Skeptics of climate change seem to often refer to the Sun's effects as an unknown that throws the whole premise of anthropogenic climate change out the window. Skepticism is fine, but ignoring scientific evidence is not.

Well now, you see -- that's easily explained:

The astronomers are clearly either part of the conspiracy, or else at least as incompetent as the climatologists.

Certainly, on a cosmological scale our sea level rising three meters over the next fifty years means very little

Where did you see 3 m / 50 years figure? I saw 1 m / 100 years (don't remember what adjective did they marked the "likely" with).

Edit: Here is exact quote:

Global Mean Sea Level Rise Projections1617 It is very likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise during the 21st century will exceed the rate 18 observed during 1971–2010 for all RCP scenarios. For the period 2081 to 2100, compared to 1986 to 19 2005, global mean sea level rise is likely to be in the range 0.29–0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.36–0.63 m for 20 RCP4.5, 0.37–0.64 m for RCP6.0, and 0.48–0.82 m (0.56–0.96 m by 2100 with a rate of rise 8–15 mm yr–121 over the last decade of the 21st century) for RCP8.5. Unlike in the AR4, these projections include a 22 contribution from changes in ice-sheet outflow, for which the central projection is 0.11 m. There is only 23 medium confidence in these ranges of projected global mean sea level rise, because there is only medium24 confidence in the likely range of projected contributions from models of ice sheet dynamics, and because 25 there is no consensus about the reliability of semi-empirical models, which give higher projections than 26 process-based models. Larger values cannot be excluded, but current scientific understanding is insufficient 27 for evaluating their probability. [13.5.1, Table 13.5, Figures 13.8 and 13.9]

I apologize, I conflated two studies: The U.S. Shoreline Survey has our coastal waters rising 79 inches "by the end of the century," and a USGS paper that put it at 60 inches in 50 years. So a bit of hyperbole by accident. I'm afraid I'm no climatologist, though, so there's still no evidence of incompetence on their part.

It was also a fun moment when Monckton was thrown out of the (failed, as always) Doha climate talks.

tegirinenashi wrote:

There is one gross omission in the article; commentary to the IPCC panel photo, to be exact. They received "Nobel *Peace* Prize", and there is nothing even remotely scientific about it.

When did science not have societal consequences? IPCC got the prize in recognition of the science:

"The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change" [ http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ ... tes/2007/# ]

From the award speech:

"This year a great deal is hinging on global warming. Processes that have been going on for a long time are accelerating. The ice is melting more rapidly in the Arctic, the desert is spreading more quickly in Africa, the glaciers are shrinking in the Himalayas.

In country after country, climate-related issues are moving up the political agenda. The two who, in the opinion of the Nobel Committee, should be given the greatest credit for this development are this year's Laureates, the IPCC and Al Gore. The IPCC, the United Nations' climate panel, is a unique body, as its name alone indicates. The climate panel was established in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). This was a follow-up on the so-called Brundtland Report Our Common Future, which had been submitted the year before and which gave rise to the first wave of discussion of the environment and the climate. On a day like today, Gro Harlem Brundtland also deserves her share of the credit for the advances we have in fact made in our understanding of environmental problems.

Whereas the Brundtland Report was wide-ranging, the IPCC was given a more delimited mandate. The world's scientists were invited to participate in a continuous process aimed at assessing global climate change with regard to its degree, causes, and consequences, and to counter-measures. Currently over 130 countries are taking part, with 450 authors and 800 contributors, while 2,500 scientific experts take part in the hearings. Governments also take part in the reviews of the reports. The climate panel is, in other words, a quite extraordinary global project.

The U.N. climate panel has arrived at its conclusions through a form of work that is fundamentally innovative. Previous mobilizations of the scientific community have often had moral foundations, for instance in the campaigns against nuclear weapons or for human rights. In the case of the IPCC, it is the United Nations and the nations of the world that have initiated a large-scale and continuous mobilization of the scientific community's knowledge concerning climate change. Similar procedures to the IPCC's should be considered as ways of approaching problems also in other fields. Biological diversity, desertification, and over-fishing of the seas have been mentioned."

"Whereas in the 1980s global warming might be viewed as an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence of the real situation. In the last few years, the connections have become much clearer and the consequences still more apparent.

You didn't think the climate science denialists could get recognition for science, being a unique science model for disseminating knowledge, and lay foundations for change, do you!?

As for AGW getting a science Nobel Prize, the GW mechanism is old hat. Even if climate scientists figure out ways to model the global physics (and chemistry and biology), it is hard to compete with other fields for the Nobel requirement of "discovery or invention": "shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics". [ http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/ ]

Maybe after the SNR of the AGW effect reaches 3 sigma, a physics grade quality of testing hypotheses. I was betting 50 % risk that would happen to the -14 release due to increased signal. We'll see.

Skeptics of climate change seem to often refer to the Sun's effects as an unknown that throws the whole premise of anthropogenic climate change out the window. Skepticism is fine, but ignoring scientific evidence is not.

The problem with Rawls and others like him is that they'll latch on to anything the IPCC says (or does) that raises doubt, whether it's doubt on the science or doubt on the legitimacy of the IPCC, like the email debacle from a while back. If deniers can't find anything glaringly offense, they'll make something up or interpret things ass-backwards.

There's always going to be doubt, if not on the source of climate change, then on the magnitude of the temperature and sea level changes. Rawls is not a climate scientist and he has already made up his mind. Sadly, even if I choose to ignore Rawls, deniers will prop Rawls up as a whistleblower on IPCC fraud and the ignorant masses will listen and put off real action another 5-10 years.

There is always doubt. But Timmer should do a little bit of homework of his own. The fact is that it is quite difficult to measure CURRENT total solar irradiance accurately, much less that of the past. Yes, some tenuous correlations have been shown via proxies, but it is very small signal in a great deal of noise. Anybody who relies on or tries to make definitive estimates of past total solar irradiance, given current technology, is a fool.

Skeptics of climate change seem to often refer to the Sun's effects as an unknown that throws the whole premise of anthropogenic climate change out the window. Skepticism is fine, but ignoring scientific evidence is not.

The problem with Rawls and others like him is that they'll latch on to anything the IPCC says (or does) that raises doubt, whether it's doubt on the science or doubt on the legitimacy of the IPCC, like the email debacle from a while back. If deniers can't find anything glaringly offense, they'll make something up or interpret things ass-backwards.

There's always going to be doubt, if not on the source of climate change, then on the magnitude of the temperature and sea level changes. Rawls is not a climate scientist and he has already made up his mind. Sadly, even if I choose to ignore Rawls, deniers will prop Rawls up as a whistleblower on IPCC fraud and the ignorant masses will listen and put off real action another 5-10 years.

There is always doubt. But Timmer should do a little bit of homework of his own. The fact is that it is quite difficult to measure CURRENT total solar irradiance accurately, much less that of the past. Yes, some tenuous correlations have been shown via proxies, but it is very small signal in a great deal of noise. Anybody who relies on or tries to make definitive estimates of past total solar irradiance, given current technology, is a fool.

Well, sure, it's difficult. Most things worth doing are difficult. It doesn't mean people can't put their heads together and do it, though.

Ug. Is anyone else totally bored with climate change? I mean really, I am sure it will be terrible and everything, but does it have to be so terribly slow? I propose we speed it up! Here's how I would do it. Perhaps this calls for a ruining the world Kickstarter.

If the draft isn't even at the stage of being voted on by the member nations, then anyone trying to make hay out of its contents is just stupid, because it still has to be filtered through the lens of delegations like the US and Saudi Arabia who have a lot of past history of watering down the facts as much as humanly possible.

That's just so excellent. So it would mean that, in fact, "the morons"'s actions strengthened the IPCC content, by making it public before being "watered down" (say : almost manipulated) by "officials". It's so clean, one has to wonder if it was not among the intentions by making the reviewing so "opened" in the first place....

This article should be criticizing the IPCC lack of transparency, not Rawls! Transparency is the hallmark of good governance. UN policies recognize that. There is no place in the IPCC drafting process for confidentiality agreements or any kind, or any input that could be interpreted by the public as potentially clandestine.

As the article's headline says, the IPCC lets anyone read climate change report early, so by what logic would they not expect it to be publicized. The requirement to sign a confidentiality agree is a slap in the face to the 2010 report on needed IPCC changes. It is a ridiculous, clumsy attempt to subvert the intent the 2010 report's recommendations. The IPCC member or staff person who recommended that policy should be publicly identified and questioned about he/she justifies its impact on the public's right to full transparency in government. .

Good science actively seeks and welcomes skepticism with open arms -- even the radical skepticism of so-called deniers. History has proven this is the best and quickest way for good science to get even better. It is discouraging that the IPCC apparently hasn't learned that lesson.

The IPCC member or staff person who recommended that policy should be publicly identified and questioned about he/she justifies its impact on the public's right to full transparency in government.

This kind of attitude is actually a hindrance to creating a more open process, you realize that right? Calling for people to be singled out and interrogated for something you don't agree with smacks of bullying. And there's plenty of room to criticize Rawls here, too. Even if you think his breach of the NDA is justified because the IPCC is better off being transparent anyway, he still abused the privilege to launch a misguided attack on the entire scientific basis of the unfinished IPCC report. This type of action is also not conducive to making the process more transparent. The IPCC knows that irrational critics will take something out of context and spin it as some kind of smoking gun for the Global Warming Hoax meme, spreading it far and wide because a lie can travel all the way around the world before the truth can even pull up its pants. We know from past experience that this tends to make the researchers and authors more likely to close up from the public, not less. Whether that's the appropriate response or not, it's the likeliest. Finally, if the IPCC process can apparently be accessed by anybody (i.e. you can sign up as a reviewer), isn't that already pretty damn transparent?

You are very wrong. This isn't about bullying. This is about restoring the integrity of the IPCC. It’s about sunshine. It’s about the IPCC's commitment (or lack of commitment) to public disclosure and transparency. The IPCC’s reputation in this regard is much lower than it has to be to succeed in it’s mission, a mission that is extremely important to all humanity. A lot of highly qualified people outside the IPCC have worked very hard on that problem. They have publicly made some excellent recommendations about how to solve it.

Somebody, maybe even Chairman Rajendra K. Pachaurii himself, gave the order to implement what appears to be a ridiculous, insulting policy. On its face, the policy appears to intentionally violate the letter and the spirit of the recommendations in the 2010 Inter Academy Panel's report on how to fix the underlying problems of the IPCC.

Insult the IAP and the IPCC insult’s the leading scientific bodies in the 105 nations it represents, as well as the general public. The IAP report is urging us to face the fact that in the public's mind the IPCC seems to be casting itself as an all-knowing technocracy that is above us all. Perhaps I’m wrong but I’m almost certain that is not what you want. But if that image continues to rise out of actions and policies of the IPCC, it's days are numbered.

I strongly disagree with your assertion that a public investigation is bullying.for a public entity's employee or anybody acting on behalf of a public entity. When the Mayor or Chief of Police or Planning Director or City Engineer in my city (Austin, Texas) is accused of a major policy violation, the accusation is made in public and the investigation is done in public.

Do you actually think it is right for an entire organization (such as the IPCC) to shoulder the blame and cloud of suspicion created by inappropriate actions taken by some anonymous politically powerful individual(s)?

If the ‘confidentiality agreement” investigation is not public, any guilty parties can easily hang the blame on a low level individual. It happens all the time in private organizations, but we all know a low level individual would not be permitted to make the top level decision to implement that kind of policy change. The investigation must be public and it must be transparent, otherwise the IPCC’s work and agenda will be vulnerable to corruption from the inside by those wanting to commit financial fraud or to promote a clandestine public policy agenda.

Hey, this sort of thing is nothing new! It's an ancient problem with governing bodies. It happens all the time. Read the news. The only known cure for it is user-friendly public disclosure and transparency of records and actions, with a little help from very thorough independent financial and management audits.